On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:43:15AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 11 Nov 2025, Thomas Zimmermann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am 10.11.25 um 17:17 schrieb Jani Nikula: > >> Use the higher level function where crtc is available. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]> > > > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Zimmermann <[email protected]> > > > > Is there a long-term plan to replace drm_vblank_crtc() entirely? > > Otherwise this looks a bit pointless. > > Well, almost entirely. There are a few cases (plus the one that Ville > mentioned later in the series) that need to operate on dev + pipe > alone. The main point is that when you have a crtc and use that for the > source of pipe, you don't have to do range checks on the pipe. This > becomes gradually more evident in the series.
I've actaully been thinking about doing the exact opposite. Ie. switch drm_vblank.c over to drm_vblank_crtc completely. That is one of those things that might help with implementing pipe/crtc virtualization in i915. We basically want all interrupt stuff (including vblanks) to be tied to our hardware pipes and not the uapi drm_crtc. So we'd make drm_vblank_crtc==pipe, and introduce some kind of dynamic drm_crtc<->drm_vblank_crtc mapping for the uapi facing parts of drm_vblank.c... -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
